Let's be generous and chalk it up to the early-morning hour. Otherwise we'd have to come down hard on radio host Mike Gallagher, who as a guest on this morning's Fox & Friends Weekend went ga-ga for Barack Obama. It's one thing to acknowledge as did Mike that Obama has appeal as a candidate. But, interviewed by Keran Chetry, it was Gallagher's praise for Obama's substance that shocked, coming as it did from a putative conservative. Said Gallagher:

"He's got some pretty solid ideas. He's a moderate."

Moderate?? If Mike would check Obama's record, he'd find that in addition to having received a perfect 100% rating last year from the paleo-liberals at Americans for Democratic Action, a host of other ratings Barack has received screams "cookie-cutter left-wing Democrat":

* Planned Parenthood 100% in 2006.

* National Right to Life Committee 0% in 2005-2006.

* Americans for Tax Reform 0% in 2005.

* NAACP 100% in 2005.

* American Conservative Union 8 percent in 2005.

* Illinois Environmental Council 100% in 2003.

* Children's Defense Fund [Hillary's old beat] 100% in 2005.

* National Organization For Women 100% in 2005.

* NRA, 'F' in 2004.

* Federation for American Immigration Reform 0% in 2005.

* 2005 AFL-CIO 92%.

So just what are those ideas Mike finds "solid," and where is the proof of Obama's moderation? Come on Mike - have an extra cup of coffee and check the record to stave off recurrences of early morning bouts of Obamamania.

I copied the list of Obama's "credits" and included them in an e-mail to Gallagher. I am still giving him the benefit of the doubt, though. Hopefully, clarification or some sort of retraction will be forthcoming. His history is very good.

When was the last time we had an election that was decided on "strength of ideas" -- rather than on "Money spent and dirt dug"....

November 7, 2006.

Republicans spent all their time digging dirt and buying stupid commercials, and advanced no ideas at all. The Democrats were no better, of course, but at least they could run as outsiders. It was incumbent on the Republicans to explain why they deserved re-election, and they wasted their time on nonsense instead.

When my tv timer kicked this morning it was on FOX in the Gallagher segment. I went from sweet dreams to (insert..."Oh Jeez Not This Stuff Again" guy)reality. Gallagher's credibility as an objective opinion/talker for the libertarian/right/conservative side went to ZERO on this issue.

Thanks for your list Mark. Thanks for pointing out the record of this drive-by-media created man.

Gallagher was the shooter this morning. Keran was driving the car. Lives of the unwitting were diminished.

Election night 2004 I thought Obama was a bit of a beacon of hope in the Democratic Party. While the majority of the Democrats were whining about another Bush victory and the woes sure to follow - Obama was appealing for the country to accept the results, work together and move forward.

At least he isn't from the Michael Moore contingency. Not my first choice for President, but looking over the Democrats options - he is actually pretty high up there IMO.

I'm just sayin'.... who else are you looking at from the Dems beyond Hillary?

I think that Obama is very electable. This is not a good thing for us, of course, but we would be deluding ourselves if we put him in the same categroy as Gore, Kerry or even Hillary. He will be able to run circles around them in terms of personality and popularity. We need to see him as a SERIOUS challenge.

We let Hillary fight him for the nomination. Either she wins it, and the black voters stay home to "get even" with her, or he wins it, and we re-run her criticisms of him to get the mushy middle scared of him.

Six months ago, I said that the nominations were going to Hillary and McCain, unless someone else catches fire, and fast. Obama is doing just that, and over on our side, nobody else is anywhere near a threat to McCain, unless the media starts gushing over Rudy like they have Obama.

27
posted on 12/10/2006 5:13:11 AM PST
by hunter112
(Total victory at home and in the Middle East!)

If the other Democrats you're talking about are Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and Hillary Clinton, then you might have a point in saying he's not so bad. But I can only say 'might', because if you look at his voting record, then is there really that much difference between them?

In fact, Obama is more of a threat because he packages his far-left ideology in an appealing, media-friendly cover. A President Obama would easily be the most leftwing Presidency of modern times.

Yep. The GOP ran a carpet bagger candidate in the form of Alan Keyes and lost. Now, the Laimstream media is fawning all over Osama Obama as if it were the second coming. We have a similar situation here in the 3rd CD of Tennessee, although without all the media coverage.

For the last 3 election cycles the RNC has refused to support and run a real candidate in my district (but they still want my money). This past election the first time I saw the 'Pubbie candidate's name was on the ballot. No signs, no TV ads, nothing. And this is for an area that was once held by Zach Wamp (R), before the gerrymandering of the district in 2001. The current congresscritter, Lincoln Davis (D), is a stuffed suit and would be easy to beat, IMO.

Is it really all that difficult to see why the GOP lost both houses of Congress? I don't think so.

>" Our educational system has, for 50 years, been dedicated to turning out uncritical consumers that will fit the models of marketing/advertising types."

Further proof, look at the "music" being shoved down the kids throats nowadays. Pure garbage! It could be a recording of mooing cows flatulating, but if it's images are full of bling, and sking, it's an award winning zillion seller.

38
posted on 12/10/2006 5:47:19 AM PST
by rawcatslyentist
(When true genius appears, know him by this sign: all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.)

Yeah, but if this voting record is all you got on him: * Planned Parenthood 100% in 2006. * National Right to Life Committee 0% in 2005-2006. * Americans for Tax Reform 0% in 2005. * NAACP 100% in 2005. * American Conservative Union 8 percent in 2005. * Illinois Environmental Council 100% in 2003. * Children's Defense Fund [Hillary's old beat] 100% in 2005. * National Organization For Women 100% in 2005. * NRA, 'F' in 2004. * Federation for American Immigration Reform 0% in 2005. * 2005 AFL-CIO 92%. Then you ain't got much to motivate a voting base. Right now I think his inexperience is his biggest drawback. I think his middle name being Hussein and his last name rhyming with 'Osama' are probably big enough factors to keep him out of the White House (even as a VP), but I'd want a little more than that and his 100% NAACP voting record if I were an adversary. In short, we'll need some dirt on this guy to keep him from being a factor... something more than just the shady land deal with his 'neighbor'.

Rudy? Well, if power at all cost, including conservative principles is what is important to you, he may be your candidate. However, since he's about as liberal as the next Democrat with regards to abortion, good luck getting the conservative base out to vote for him.

His pro-abortion voting record should be reason enough to get the conservative base out to vote against him. Unless, that is, the Republican candidate is not all that much different in his/her views on abortion. I'm thinking Rudy Guiliani, which so many seem to do a Gallagher on. You know, go Ga-Ga over.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.